The search, coagulation, and clipping (SCC) method prevents delayed bleeding after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection.
Clip
Delayed bleeding
Gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection
Journal
Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association
ISSN: 1436-3305
Titre abrégé: Gastric Cancer
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 100886238
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2019
05 2019
Historique:
received:
20
07
2018
accepted:
18
09
2018
pubmed:
30
9
2018
medline:
4
9
2019
entrez:
30
9
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Delayed bleeding is an important complication after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The search, coagulation, and clipping (SCC) method can be used to prevent delayed bleeding after ESD. However, its safety and efficacy are unclear. We compared the SCC method with post-ESD coagulation (PEC) to clarify the safety and efficacy of the SCC method for preventing delayed bleeding after gastric ESD. This retrospective study included 438 patients (478 lesions) who underwent gastric ESD. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the significant independent factors associated with delayed bleeding and we performed propensity-score matching (PSM) to reduce the effect of procedure-selection bias of SCC method. Of the 438 patients, 216 underwent PEC and 222 underwent SCC. Delayed bleeding was significantly less common in the SCC than in the PEC (2.6% vs. 7.2%; P = 0.013). Among patients treated with antithrombotic therapy, the delayed bleeding rate was lower in the SCC group than in the PEC group; however, the difference was not significant (P = 0.15). The SCC method was found to be a significant independent factor for the prevention of delayed bleeding. PSM was performed in 156 patients in the PEC group and SCC group. There was a significant difference in the incidence of bleeding in the PEC and SCC groups (P = 0.013). No patient had perforation/bleeding associated with the SCC method. Our findings suggest that the SCC method is a simple, safe, and effective approach for preventing delayed bleeding after gastric ESD.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Delayed bleeding is an important complication after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The search, coagulation, and clipping (SCC) method can be used to prevent delayed bleeding after ESD. However, its safety and efficacy are unclear. We compared the SCC method with post-ESD coagulation (PEC) to clarify the safety and efficacy of the SCC method for preventing delayed bleeding after gastric ESD.
METHODS
This retrospective study included 438 patients (478 lesions) who underwent gastric ESD. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the significant independent factors associated with delayed bleeding and we performed propensity-score matching (PSM) to reduce the effect of procedure-selection bias of SCC method.
RESULTS
Of the 438 patients, 216 underwent PEC and 222 underwent SCC. Delayed bleeding was significantly less common in the SCC than in the PEC (2.6% vs. 7.2%; P = 0.013). Among patients treated with antithrombotic therapy, the delayed bleeding rate was lower in the SCC group than in the PEC group; however, the difference was not significant (P = 0.15). The SCC method was found to be a significant independent factor for the prevention of delayed bleeding. PSM was performed in 156 patients in the PEC group and SCC group. There was a significant difference in the incidence of bleeding in the PEC and SCC groups (P = 0.013). No patient had perforation/bleeding associated with the SCC method.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that the SCC method is a simple, safe, and effective approach for preventing delayed bleeding after gastric ESD.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30267178
doi: 10.1007/s10120-018-0878-y
pii: 10.1007/s10120-018-0878-y
pmc: PMC6476836
doi:
Substances chimiques
Fibrinolytic Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
567-575Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Gut. 2001 Feb;48(2):225-9
pubmed: 11156645
Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2001 Feb;15(1):1-14
pubmed: 11355897
J Gastroenterol. 2006 Oct;41(10):929-42
pubmed: 17096062
Am J Gastroenterol. 2007 Aug;102(8):1610-6
pubmed: 17403076
Endoscopy. 2008 Mar;40(3):179-83
pubmed: 18322872
Surg Endosc. 2011 Jan;25(1):98-107
pubmed: 20549245
Dig Dis Sci. 2012 Feb;57(2):435-9
pubmed: 21901257
Dig Endosc. 2011 Oct;23(4):290-5
pubmed: 21951088
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012 Feb;46(2):124-9
pubmed: 21959325
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012 May;27(5):907-12
pubmed: 22142449
Endoscopy. 2012 Feb;44(2):114-21
pubmed: 22271021
Surg Endosc. 2013 Apr;27(4):1292-301
pubmed: 23232998
Dig Endosc. 2013 Mar;25 Suppl 1:71-8
pubmed: 23368986
Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2013;2013:365830
pubmed: 23843783
Dig Endosc. 2014 Jan;26(1):1-14
pubmed: 24215155
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Apr;81(4):906-12
pubmed: 25440679
Endoscopy. 2015 Jul;47(7):632-7
pubmed: 25590184
Endosc Int Open. 2015 Feb;3(1):E31-8
pubmed: 26134769
Dig Endosc. 2016 Jan;28(1):3-15
pubmed: 26234303
Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2016;2016:1457357
pubmed: 27022390
Gastric Cancer. 2018 Jul;21(4):696-702
pubmed: 29357012